Perhaps you could provide similar examples where the campaign of a US presidential candidate tried to obtain dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government as part of an attempt by that foreign government to get that candidate elected. I'll wait...

freeman3 wrote:Perhaps you could provide similar examples where the campaign of a US presidential candidate tried to obtain dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government as part of an attempt by that foreign government to get that candidate elected. I'll wait...

freeman3 wrote:Perhaps you could provide similar examples where the campaign of a US presidential candidate tried to obtain dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government as part of an attempt by that foreign government to get that candidate elected. I'll wait...

Ng, a Macau businessman with ties to the Chinese government, was accused of funneling over $1 million in illegal foreign donations to support Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996.

But, money is not "dirt!"

And, it's not like a good portion of the purpose of the CGI was international influence-peddling, right? People were going to die if the CGI was shut down. Then, Hillary lost and, all of the sudden, the CGI was no longer vital.

It's hard for me to imagine that POTUS was not aware of a meeting among his son, very influential son-in-law, and head of campaign with other parties. At least the campaign head would know about the rules ...

Well, I don't know enough about story you linked to assess it, Brad. Some purported Clinton associate funneled money from this guy to the DNC and Clinton Defense Fund. There might be impropriety I suppose by the Clinton and /or DNC about making sure the money is coming from American sources.

But there is no linkage between the money and any influence gained or that the Clintons actively solicited foreign money. Completely different from Donald, Jr. willing to take help from a foreign power. And the certainty of it. There are no real questions. He was told that the Russian government was trying to help Trump, he was told he was meeting with a Russian government attorney, he was told that he was to receive Clinton dirt. And he authenticated the emails.

Yes, RJ, I think most reasonable think people would find that the president knew about the meeting. And as you said Manafort would know that what they were seeking to do was illegal. One would think that he would have told Trump et al. that they were violating campaign laws if they accepted help from Russia. That's a supposition of course-certainly not as clear an inference as Trump knowing about the meeting--, but it would be kind of shocking that a veteran campaigner would not have said something about it.

Last edited by freeman3 on 14 Jul 2017, 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's what is kind of shocking about their defense. Yeah, we were willing to violate campaign laws to win. So what? Anybody would do it...

Well, I guess they were there only to listen, right?. So...if it was really good dirt you violate the law and accept and if it's not that good you decide to not be bought by a foreign power? How noble...

freeman3 wrote:That's what is kind of shocking about their defense. Yeah, we were willing to violate campaign laws to win. So what? Anybody would do it...

Well, I guess they were there only to listen, right?. So...if it was really good dirt you violate the law and accept and if it's not that good you decide to not be bought by a foreign power? How noble...

I said before the election and I will say it now: worst two candidates ever. Furthermore, the least trustworthy duo in my memory.

I am agnostic re Trump investigation and/or Clinton investigation. However, I’ve no confidence we will see a professional investigation of Trump for precisely this reason: the “Deep State” hates Trump.

I am agnostic re Trump investigation and/or Clinton investigation. However, I’ve no confidence we will see a professional investigation of Trump for precisely this reason: the “Deep State” hates Trump.

The real question revolves around disentangling Comey and Mueller. Comey is compromised. Comey and Mueller are good friends, but that doesn't mean Mueller is compromised. I think you have to wait until you see all the evidence.

I am agnostic re Trump investigation and/or Clinton investigation. However, I’ve no confidence we will see a professional investigation of Trump for precisely this reason: the “Deep State” hates Trump.

The real question revolves around disentangling Comey and Mueller. Comey is compromised. Comey and Mueller are good friends, but that doesn't mean Mueller is compromised. I think you have to wait until you see all the evidence.

For someone with the power of an Independent Counsel, I believe even the appearance of possible compromise is too much. He should resign.

Even the case against Flynn is a joke. They bugged the Russian ambassador. They call Flynn in, transcripts of his conversation in hand, and ask questions. He fails to tell the truth.

Does this advance the cause of justice?

I’m not convinced.

Unless there is an underlying crime, this is all a pile of horse manure. And so far, despite all the leaks, we’ve heard nothing about an underlying crime.

Comey testified that he did not believe a case could be brought under gross negligence, anyway. So the language did not support a criminal prosecution, at least according to Comey's interpretation. California defines gross negligence as the want of even scant care. That seems to be essentially the same thing as saying extreme carelessness.

So they knew they were not going up prosecute because gross negligence was not enough. And they chose language that while essentially meaning the same thing did not tie directly into the language of the statute, hoping to making their determination cause less political furor.

But that doesn't mean they did not make a legitimate determination. I still believe they did.